space travel

well, ive looked throught the forum and see some stuff about the
future for space. ideas and so on. but have any1 of you thought
about how we should be able to travel this enoprmues amount of
distance? it take atleast 2 month to travel to mars today. and that
is to much whit oput artificiel gravity. to travel outside our own
system we need warp speeds. what is warp now? its a way to travel
faster then the speed of light, now you think, nothing whit a mass
greater then 0 cant do it. yes they cant, but what say that the
spacetime continuum cant? nothing. my idea to accomplish this is that
we biuld somekind generator which stretch out the spacetime continuum
in front of the ship while pushing it togheter behind it, when it
reach a critical level where the spacetime continuum in front of the
ship are to thin and the 1 behind are to fat, it will create a
"spacetime wave" and if the ship keep stretching and push it togheter
the ship can ride the wave, then its still in normal space whit out
moving, while the spacetime continuum is moving. what do you think?
:idea:

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

In article ,
lid (zelos) wrote:

well, ive looked throught the forum and see some stuff about the
future for space. ideas and so on. but have any1 of you thought
about how we should be able to travel this enoprmues amount of
distance?

sarcasmNo, none of us have ever thought about actual travel in
space!/sarcasm

it take atleast 2 month to travel to mars today.

Actually, nobody can travel to Mars today at all. How long it will take
when eventually we can depends on what technologies are available then.

and that is to much whit oput artificiel gravity.

Is it? Your crystal ball must be clearer than mine.

to travel outside our own system we need warp speeds.

Not necessarily.

what is warp now? its a way to travel
faster then the speed of light, now you think, nothing whit a mass
greater then 0 cant do it. yes they cant, but what say that the
spacetime continuum cant? nothing. my idea to accomplish this is that
we biuld somekind generator which stretch out the spacetime continuum
in front of the ship while pushing it togheter behind it...

If you're going to write science fiction, you'll need to learn a few
additional things. First, look for a wide key on the next-to-bottom row
of your keyboard, at either end. That's the "shift" key, and you can
use it at the start of a sentence. Also look for another wide key above
the shift key on the right. You can use that to insert "line breaks"
and make things called "paragraphs."

Finally, you might want to come up with a more original concept of warp
drive -- the one you describe has been done many times over. Or better
yet, try to imagine a future in which FTL travel is impossible, yet we
colonize the galaxy anyway.

Best,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

On 24 Oct 2004 07:28:45 -0500,
lid (zelos) wrote:

well, ive looked throught the forum and see some stuff about the
future for space. ideas and so on. but have any1 of you thought
about how we should be able to travel this enoprmues amount of
distance? it take atleast 2 month to travel to mars today. and that
is to much whit oput artificiel gravity. to travel outside our own
system we need warp speeds. what is warp now? its a way to travel
faster then the speed of light, now you think, nothing whit a mass
greater then 0 cant do it. yes they cant, but what say that the
spacetime continuum cant? nothing. my idea to accomplish this is that
we biuld somekind generator which stretch out the spacetime continuum
in front of the ship while pushing it togheter behind it, when it
reach a critical level where the spacetime continuum in front of the
ship are to thin and the 1 behind are to fat, it will create a
"spacetime wave" and if the ship keep stretching and push it togheter
the ship can ride the wave, then its still in normal space whit out
moving, while the spacetime continuum is moving. what do you think?
:idea:

I think your a troll.



Christopher
+++++++++++
"Never take anything for granted."

Benjamin Disraeli

Ok, let's try it. I'm in a rocket. I make time in front of me move
slower, and time behind me move faster. and umm. I'm still not moving. Ok,
well here goes, i make my mega-uber-space ship warp both space and time,
behind me is massive, infront of me is slowed. umm wait a
minute......insert mandatory paragraph

I'm a blackhole. The known universe has already thought of this and they
are not moving faster than light either. Try again one dollar.

"zelos" wrote in message
...
well, ive looked throught the forum and see some stuff about the
future for space. ideas and so on. but have any1 of you thought
about how we should be able to travel this enoprmues amount of
distance? it take atleast 2 month to travel to mars today. and that
is to much whit oput artificiel gravity. to travel outside our own
system we need warp speeds. what is warp now? its a way to travel
faster then the speed of light, now you think, nothing whit a mass
greater then 0 cant do it. yes they cant, but what say that the
spacetime continuum cant? nothing. my idea to accomplish this is that
we biuld somekind generator which stretch out the spacetime continuum
in front of the ship while pushing it togheter behind it, when it
reach a critical level where the spacetime continuum in front of the
ship are to thin and the 1 behind are to fat, it will create a
"spacetime wave" and if the ship keep stretching and push it togheter
the ship can ride the wave, then its still in normal space whit out
moving, while the spacetime continuum is moving. what do you think?
:idea:

*-----------------------*
Posted at:
www.GroupSrv.com
*-----------------------*

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:45:16 -0400, wrote:

Ok, let's try it. I'm in a rocket. I make time in front of me move
slower, and time behind me move faster. and umm. I'm still not moving.
Ok,
well here goes, i make my mega-uber-space ship warp both space and time,
behind me is massive, infront of me is slowed. umm wait a
minute......insert mandatory paragraph

I'm a blackhole. The known universe has already thought of this and
they
are not moving faster than light either. Try again one dollar.


No that is not correct. There is indeed a solution to general relativity
along the lines he suggest.
It was first suggested by a Welsh physisist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994.
The paper is indeed called warp drive.
http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/rel...miguel94a.html

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Sounds logical, but it still seems to me that this is what a black hole
does. Even if a b.h. did this in minor amounts they would still be orbiting
the galaxy at a faster rate. Don't get me wrong, I belive there are ways to
break Einstines rules wether this is one or not. Reminds me of the 'warp
drive' in a movie where they place a black hole in front of the ship and
just 'fall' into it going faster than light. In my own opinon I think it
will have something to do with entangled particals. they are obviously
breaking einstines law's.

--
Matthew Hagston

"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 00:45:16 -0400, wrote:

Ok, let's try it. I'm in a rocket. I make time in front of me move
slower, and time behind me move faster. and umm. I'm still not moving.
Ok,
well here goes, i make my mega-uber-space ship warp both space and time,
behind me is massive, infront of me is slowed. umm wait a
minute......insert mandatory paragraph

I'm a blackhole. The known universe has already thought of this and
they
are not moving faster than light either. Try again one dollar.


No that is not correct. There is indeed a solution to general relativity
along the lines he suggest.
It was first suggested by a Welsh physisist Miguel Alcubierre in 1994.
The paper is indeed called warp drive.

http://www.astro.cf.ac.uk/groups/rel...miguel94a.html

--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:15:01 GMT, Matthew Hagston
wrote:

Sounds logical, but it still seems to me that this is what a black
hole
does. Even if a b.h. did this in minor amounts they would still be
orbiting
the galaxy at a faster rate. Don't get me wrong, I belive there are ways
to
break Einstines rules wether this is one or not. Reminds me of the 'warp
drive' in a movie where they place a black hole in front of the ship and
just 'fall' into it going faster than light. In my own opinon I think it
will have something to do with entangled particals. they are obviously
breaking einstines law's.


Alcubierre's model is within the confines of general relativity.
It does not break relativity.
The point s that the stretch of space is local. Inside the field the time
lines are normal
so this is not a black hole. (Have you actually read the article?)

As for entagled states this does not violate general relativity either.
Though it is a answer to the Einstein Polensky Rosen (EPR) paradox.
That is: Consider a energetic phothon decaying into a positron electron
pair.
Now measure the momentum of the electron (or positron) and the position of
the positron. Now you can calculate the exact energy and position of the
photon.
But that is impossible according to quantum mechanics.
A experiment at Princton in 1984 measuring uncertainty of spin showed that
measuring the momentum of one particle changed the spin of the other
instantly
thus confirming this confusion. Bercley has done extensive studies of
'coupled states' since then.
Copled states occur when two events are not independent.
(remeber independence from statistics P(A,B) = P(A)* P(B))
The shift between couple states are instant leading to the faster than
light property
you are implying. But they are a local phenomena which are simply not
described by relavivity.
The thus do not break relativity.


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

honestly, no. I tried to read the artical but not pulling up right on
this computer. Will do so when i get home late tonight. I thought for the
entangled pairs, what you did to one, happened to the other, regardless of
distance? As far as the original question,... so basicly, you are creating a
time bubble around yourself, then create an indifference between front and
back so that you flow towards one side. say, like a magnet?

--
Matthew Hagston
---
"John Thingstad" wrote in message
news

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:15:01 GMT, Matthew Hagston
wrote:

Sounds logical, but it still seems to me that this is what a black
hole
does. Even if a b.h. did this in minor amounts they would still be
orbiting
the galaxy at a faster rate. Don't get me wrong, I belive there are ways
to
break Einstines rules wether this is one or not. Reminds me of the 'warp
drive' in a movie where they place a black hole in front of the ship and
just 'fall' into it going faster than light. In my own opinon I think it
will have something to do with entangled particals. they are obviously
breaking einstines law's.


Alcubierre's model is within the confines of general relativity.
It does not break relativity.
The point s that the stretch of space is local. Inside the field the time
lines are normal
so this is not a black hole. (Have you actually read the article?)

As for entagled states this does not violate general relativity either.
Though it is a answer to the Einstein Polensky Rosen (EPR) paradox.
That is: Consider a energetic phothon decaying into a positron electron
pair.
Now measure the momentum of the electron (or positron) and the position of
the positron. Now you can calculate the exact energy and position of the
photon.
But that is impossible according to quantum mechanics.
A experiment at Princton in 1984 measuring uncertainty of spin showed that
measuring the momentum of one particle changed the spin of the other
instantly
thus confirming this confusion. Bercley has done extensive studies of
'coupled states' since then.
Copled states occur when two events are not independent.
(remeber independence from statistics P(A,B) = P(A)* P(B))
The shift between couple states are instant leading to the faster than
light property
you are implying. But they are a local phenomena which are simply not
described by relavivity.
The thus do not break relativity.


--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/